Jessica Cole

Tag: mental-health

  • The Case for Scope 3 Emissions

    The Case for Scope 3 Emissions

    The digital economy treats human attention as a raw material to be mined without limit. However, this extraction produces a specific, harmful byproduct: it breaks our focus, fractures shared reality, and wears down the patience required for moral reasoning. Unlike physical pollution, which damages the air or water, this cognitive waste damages our ability to think. While corporations are increasingly held accountable for their physical footprint through ESG criteria, we ignore the mental damage caused by the product itself. What we are witnessing is the intentional fragmentation and manipulation of citizenry to the point of inability to functionally contribute to democracy. In this paper, I argue that this damage is a hidden cost that must be pro-actively regulated within specifically designed metrics and cognitive impact protocols, specifically expanding Scope 3 regulations to include “Cognitive Emissions.”

    To understand why this regulation is necessary, we must look at what is being lost. While the market views attention as a commodity to be sold, ethical philosophy defines it as the foundation of morality. French philosopher Simone Weil argued that “attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity” (Weil 1951, 105); it is the ability to pause one’s own ego to recognize the reality of another person. When digital platforms take over this “Attentional Commons” (Crawford 2015, 12), they do not merely distract us; they dismantle the mental tools, specifically the capacities for self-regulation and deliberation, required to govern ourselves (Crawford 2015, 23). Without the capacity for sustained, coherent thought, the self becomes fragmented, losing the sense of stability required to be a responsible citizen (Giddens 1991, 92).

    This fragmentation is not accidental. It is the result of a specific design philosophy that makes apps as tailored and easy to use as possible. Using Daniel Kahneman’s distinction, modern algorithms keep users trapped in “System 1” (fast, instinctive thinking) while bypassing “System 2” (slow, logical thinking) (Kahneman 2011, 20). System 2 governs executive control, a high-metabolic function that relies on cognitive resistance to maintain neural integrity. Neurobiologically, this follows the principle of use-dependent plasticity: neural pathways responsible for complex reasoning strengthen through challenge and degrade through disuse (Mattson 2008, 1). When an algorithm molds users into passive consumption, it removes the necessary friction required to sustain these pathways, leading to a functional degradation of critical thought.

    Consequently, this process is invasive. By predicting our desires, algorithms bypass our will, seizing our attention before we can decide where to place it. While Shoshana Zuboff calls this “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff 2019, 8), the mechanism is closer to a slot machine. As Natasha Dow Schüll observes, these interfaces use design loops to induce a trance-like state that overrides conscious choice (Schüll 2012, 166). This is built-in user manipulation. Neuroscience research on “Facebook addiction” confirms that these platforms activate the brain’s impulse systems while suppressing the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning and control (Turel et al. 2014, 685). The result is a depletion of critical thought, creating a population that reacts rather than reflects.

    Regulating this harm means looking to the precedent of carbon reporting. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s “Scope 3” covers indirect emissions, including those generated by the use of sold products (WRI/WBCSD 2004, 25). I propose applying this exact reasoning to the digital economy: a tech company must be responsible for the mental effects of product use. They are destructive because they erode the basic cognitive foundations required for a functioning society (Habermas 1989, 27). If a platform’s design creates measurable addiction, radicalization, or a loss of attention span, these are “emissions” that incur a cost to humanity.

    To develop sustainable and reliable policies, we require new auditing metrics. We must calculate the speed at which content triggers emotional responses and establish a fragmentation index to measure how often an app interrupts deep work. This is a necessary (albeit complicated) metric given that regaining focus after an interruption takes significant time and energy (Mark 2008, 108). Furthermore, we must assess the deficit of serendipity, determining whether an algorithm narrows a user’s worldview or introduces the necessary friction of new ideas.

    Once measured, these emissions can be mitigated through cognitive impact protocols. This includes mandating friction by design to force users to pause and think. For example, when Twitter introduced prompts asking users to read articles before retweeting, “blind” sharing dropped significantly (Twitter Inc. 2020). This proves that simple friction can measurably reduce cognitive waste. Beyond individual features, firms must submit to independent audits to ensure their code promotes agency rather than addiction. Finally, just as carbon sinks absorb physical waste, digital firms should be mandated to fund zones (libraries, parks, and phone-free spaces) where our attention can recover.

    It can be argued that introducing friction impedes innovation and destroys value. This view, however, fails to account for the long-term liability of cognitive degradation. A market that incentivizes the depletion of user agency creates a systemic risk to the public. By implementing “Scope 3 Cognitive Emissions,” we operationalize the cost of this damage, forcing platforms to account for the mental impact of their design choices. We are currently operating with a dangerous separation between our technological power and our institutional controls (Wilson 2012, 7). Closing this gap requires a shift, moving away from design that exploits immediate impulse. We must engineer digital environments that protect, rather than degrade, the cognitive autonomy required for a free society.

    References
    Crawford, Matthew B. 2015. The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an
    Age of Distraction. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
    Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
    Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Mark, Gloria, and Deepti Gudithala. 2008. “The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and
    Stress.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
    107–110.

    Mattson, Mark P. 2008. “Hormesis Defined.” Ageing Research Reviews 7 (1): 1–7.
    Pigou, Arthur C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.

    Schüll, Natasha Dow. 2012. Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton:
    Princeton University Press.

    Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton:
    Princeton University Press.

    Turel, Ofir, Qinghua He, Gui Xue, Lin Xiao, and Antoine Bechara. 2014. “Examination of Neural
    Systems Sub-Serving Facebook ‘Addiction’.” Psychological Reports 115 (3): 675–695.

    Twitter Inc. 2020. “Read before you Retweet.” Twitter Blog, September 24.

    United Nations Global Compact. 2004. Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a
    Changing World. New York: United Nations.

    Weil, Simone. 1951. “Reflections on the Right Use of School Studies with a View to the Love of
    God.” In Waiting for God, translated by Emma Craufurd, 105–116. New York: Harper & Row.

    Wilson, Edward O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright.
    World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development
    (WRI/WBCSD). 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting
    Standard, Revised Edition. Washington, DC: WRI/WBCSD.

    Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at
    the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.

  • The Lizard People

    The Lizard People

    (And Why We Are Creating Them)

    Lizard People.

    It is the label commonly tossed around Silicon Valley backrooms to describe a specific breed of colleague: those devoid of human consideration, understanding, or empathy. In lay terms, socio- and psychopaths. In our terms, the architects of the modern world.

    While the “Lizard Person” is a metaphor (lest we veer into David Icke conspiracy territory), the data suggests the archetype is real. According to research by Dr. Robert Hare and Dr. Paul Babiak, while only about 1% of the general population qualifies as psychopathic, that number jumps to an estimated 3% to 4% among senior business executives (Babiak & Hare, 2006). Other studies suggest the number in upper management could be as high as 12% (Croom, 2021).

    What draws them there? And more importantly, what happens when we strip-mine the education system of the Humanities, removing the very tools designed to stop their creation?

    To understand the Lizard Person, we first have to look at the human mind.

    The age-old debate of “nature vs. nurture” asks if we are born this way or if we are merely clay dolls molded by our environment. Consider Dr. James Fallon, a neuroscientist at UC Irvine. While studying the brain scans of serial killers, Fallon discovered a scan that looked exactly like a psychopath’s: low activity in the orbital cortex, the area involved in ethical behavior and impulse control.

    The scan was his own.

    Fallon possessed the genetic and neurological markers of a killer. Yet, he was a non-violent, successful academic. Why? As Fallon argues, it was his upbringing (a supportive, connected community) that prevented his biology from becoming his destiny (Fallon, 2013).

    If isolation breeds monsters, then community breeds humans. The most effective way to establish that sense of community is to understand where you came from. To feel like part of a whole. This is the function of the Humanities: studying our species’ art, our evolution, our history. It stops us from becoming mindless, formula-spouting robots.

    Philosopher Martha Nussbaum warns of this explicitly in her book Not for Profit. She argues that by slashing Humanities budgets in favor of technical training, we are producing “useful machines” rather than citizens capable of empathy or democratic thought (Nussbaum, 2010). We are removing the very curriculum that teaches us to see others as souls rather than data points.

    Capitalism and Lizard People are a match made in hell (pardon my French). The system is the perfect playground for someone without empathy. Corporations love a mindless accountant who crunches numbers all day without questioning shady tax reports. CEOs love optimizing operations to boost margins, even if it means exploiting labor or the environment.

    Consider the “efficiency” of lobbying. A study regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 found that for every $1 corporations spent lobbying for this tax holiday, they received a return of $220 in tax savings—a staggering 22,000% return on investment (Alexander et al., 2009).

    This is what happens when you optimize for math without morals. You get high returns, questionable ethics, and a ruling class that views the population as a resource to be mined rather than a community to be served.

    Perhaps these decisions are intentional features of the system, not bugs. But the education system can at least attempt to lower the odds of this outcome by producing an ethically aware population. By removing the requirement of Humanities courses, we remove the requirement of understanding what makes us human.

    Resources

    Alexander, Raquel M., et al. “Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Analysis Under the American Jobs Creation Act.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009.

    Babiak, Paul, and Robert D. Hare. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. HarperCollins, 2006.

    Croom, Simon. “The Prevalence of Psychopathy in Corporate Leadership.” Fortune, 2021.

    Fallon, James. The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain. Current, 2013.

    Nussbaum, Martha. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press, 2010.

  • Asking Better Questions While Drowning in a Sea of Answers

    Asking Better Questions While Drowning in a Sea of Answers

    You’re sitting across from a student who’s scrolling through their phone, surrounded by more information than any generation before them. They’re asking sharp, insightful questions about the material, but when it comes time to explain what they’ve learned, there’s hesitation… a gap between inquiry and understanding. I’ve seen this pattern countless times in my five years as a tutor, and it mirrors something I notice in my work as an international market strategist. In both roles, asking the right questions is critical, but so is absorbing the answers and turning them into applicable insight.

    On one hand, we’ve honed our ability to ask incisive, probing questions – a skill historically celebrated as the hallmark of critical thinking. On the other, we’re inundated with a constant deluge of information that threatens to overwhelm our capacity to absorb, process, and retain knowledge. This paradox begs the question: Are we becoming masters of inquiry while simultaneously losing our grip on comprehension? It’s a question that feels deeply personal yet universal, and one that has enormous implications for how we learn, think, and innovate.

    Now, the power of a well-crafted question is undeniable. It can unlock doors to new realms of understanding, challenge long-held assumptions, and spark evolution. In boardrooms and classrooms alike, the ability to ask penetrating questions is revered as a sign of intellectual prowess. But today, the skill commonly exists in a vacuum, detached from the equally crucial ability to absorb and integrate the answers we receive.

    Take a moment to picture yourself standing in a vast library,  ceilings arching with archives beyond your wildest imagination. Surrounded by tomes of knowledge and the rich smell that only comes from paperbacks. At this point, you’ve mastered the art of asking the librarian for exactly the right book. But as soon as you open it, another book catches your eye, and another, and another. Before you know it, you’re drowning in a sea of open books, having read the first page of a hundred volumes but fully absorbed none.

    This metaphor aptly describes our current relationship with information. We’ve become adept at seeking out knowledge, but our ability to retain and process that knowledge is under siege.

    The constant bombardment of information we face daily has tangible effects on our brains. Neuroimaging studies reveal a troubling trend: internet searching can lead to reduced activation in brain regions associated with working memory. Our cognitive control centers are literally shrinking under the weight of information overload.

    This neurobiological shift has profound implications for how we learn and retain information. Our brains, overwhelmed by the constant influx of new data, struggle to consolidate short-term memories into long-term storage. The rapid-fire nature of online information promotes task-switching, making it increasingly difficult to focus deeply on any single piece of information. We’ve become accustomed to skimming rather than thoroughly understanding, knowing we can always “Google it again later.”

    Herein lies the crux of our modern cognitive dilemma: We’re asking better questions than ever before, but are we actually listening to the answers? Are we giving ourselves the time and mental space to absorb the knowledge we seek?

    Consider this: The average person spends over 5 hours a day on their smartphone. That’s nearly a third of our waking hours devoted to a device that constantly bombards us with information. In this context, even the most insightful question risks becoming just another drop in an ocean of data.

    To effectively utilize the power of questioning, we must pair it with intentional absorption. Some techniques to do this include:

    1. Before asking a question, pause. Are you prepared to truly listen to and reflect on the answer?
    2. After receiving information, give your brain time to process. Resist the urge to immediately seek more input.
    3. Set aside dedicated time for focused learning, free from the distractions of notifications and information streams.
    4. Regularly test your understanding by attempting to explain concepts in your own words, without referring back to the source.
    5. Look for ways to link new information with existing knowledge, creating a web of understanding rather than isolated facts.

    As we move forward in this information-rich landscape, it will be necessary for us to strive for a delicate balance. The art of asking good questions is invaluable, but it must be paired with the discipline of deep listening and reflection in order to be truly valuable.

    It is our job to develop a world for future generations where our capacity for inquiry is matched by our ability to absorb and integrate knowledge. Where each question asked is a seed planted in fertile soil, nurtured by reflection and allowed to grow into true enlightenment.

    Therein lies the challenge, and the opportunity before us. In mastering both the art of questioning and the science of absorption, we can transform ourselves from mere seekers of information into true cultivators of wisdom. Imagine what will happen once we accomplish this, what we will achieve.

    Works Cited:

    Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.

    Firth, Joseph, et al. “The ‘Online Brain’: How the Internet May Be Changing Our Cognition.” World Psychiatry, vol. 18, no. 2, 2019, pp. 119-129.

    HomeGuru World. “How Asking Questions Helps You Learn in Class.” 2023.

    LINCS. “Deeper Learning through Questioning.” 2013.

    O Maringá. “Accelerating Knowledge Absorption.” 2023.

    Ophir, Eyal, et al. “Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 106, no. 37, 2009, pp. 15583-15587.

    Oxford Open Learning. “The Importance Of Asking Questions.” 2023.

    Thalheimer, Will. “The Learning Benefits of Questions.” 2014.

    Jessica Cole